Educating LLMs like Human Students: Structure-aware Injection of Domain Knowledge
This paper presents a pioneering methodology, termed StructTuning, to efficiently transform foundation Large Language Models (LLMs) into domain specialists. It significantly minimizes the training corpus requirement to a mere 0.3% while achieving an impressive 50% of traditional knowledge injection performance. Our method is inspired by the educational processes for human students, particularly how structured domain knowledge from textbooks is absorbed and then applied to tackle real-world challenges through specific exercises. Based on this, we propose a novel two-stage knowledge injection strategy: Structure-aware Continual Pre- Training (SCPT) and Structure-aware Supervised Fine-Tuning (SSFT). In the SCPT phase, we organize the training data into an auto-generated taxonomy of domain knowledge, enabling LLMs to effectively memorize textual segments linked to specific expertise within the taxonomy’s architecture. Subsequently, in the SSFT phase, we explicitly prompt models to reveal the underlying knowledge structure in their outputs, leveraging this structured domain insight to address practical problems adeptly.
In this process, all the new data to learn is textbooks (structured content) and exercising examples (question-answering pairs), and students just adopt their world knowledge to memorize, understand, and apply the knowledge to become domain experts [23, 52].
Inspired by this, we propose to inject the domain knowledge from textbooks into LLMs, like educating a human student, through a novel two-stage training strategy: Structure-aware Continual Pre-Training (SCPT) and Structure-aware Supervised Fine-Tuning (SSFT
Traditionally, text corpora are merely concatenated and divided into chunks of 2048 [35] or 4096 [13], while the inherent structure of the texts (e.g., catalogs of textbooks) is disregarded. Instead, we propose an automatic approach to maintain each chunk’s knowledge structure. We view each chunk as a knowledge point, employing advanced LLMs to extract domain knowledge taxonomy from the corpus efficiently, bypassing the need for manual annotation. Subsequently, LLMs are trained to predict textual content under the condition of linked knowledge points within the taxonomy, integrating individual training chunks with the entire knowledge framework. Ultimately, models are asked to memorize the knowledge structure to review the whole domain knowledge system.
Traditionally, text corpora are merely concatenated and divided into chunks of 2048 [35] or 4096 [13], while the inherent structure of the texts (e.g., catalogs of textbooks) is disregarded. Instead, we propose an automatic approach to maintain each chunk’s knowledge structure. We view each chunk as a knowledge point, employing advanced LLMs to extract domain knowledge taxonomy from the corpus efficiently, bypassing the need for manual annotation. Subsequently, LLMs are trained to predict textual content under the condition of linked knowledge points within the taxonomy, integrating individual training chunks with the entire knowledge framework. Ultimately, models are asked to memorize the knowledge structure to review the whole domain knowledge system.
In the SSFT stage, the goal shifts from knowledge injection to enabling LLMs to recall and utilize their acquired knowledge to tackle real-world challenges. We explicitly elicit knowledge structures in LLMs’ responses, as a beacon for models to targeted information retrieval or logical reasoning for reliable responses. To this end, we derive a scalable strategy to generate question-answer pairs as practice exercises by advanced LLMs such as GPT4 [1] or LLaMA3 [2]. In the scenarios with existing QA pairs like MMedBench [35], we retrieve related knowledge structures and content, instructing LLaMA3 to provide explanations from questions to answers based on these structures.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How do different knowledge graph construction methods compare in effectiveness?- How much does organized knowledge improve learning efficiency versus raw data?
- Which knowledge structure types best fit different query types?
- Does knowledge structure matter more than knowledge volume for model training?
- Can knowledge graph structure alone generate sufficient training signals for domain reasoning?
- How do knowledge graphs scale as training data for open-ended search tasks?
- What techniques work best for injecting domain knowledge at training time?
- Can prompting alone inject new domain knowledge into a model?
- How do training-time and inference-time knowledge injection techniques compare?
- Can prompt optimization alone inject knowledge models don't already have?
- What role does knowledge injection play in adapting RAG to industry taxonomies?
- What causes catastrophic forgetting during domain knowledge embedding?
- How should rapidly evolving domains choose knowledge injection methods?
- Can prompt optimization or fine-tuning inject knowledge models do not already contain?
- What training cost tradeoffs exist between fine-tuning and other knowledge injection methods?
- Why does training data format matter more than domain content?
- Why does training data format matter more than its domain content?
- Does training data format shape model reasoning more than domain content?